Conclusions 479.17 and Section 479.10, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as the failure to secure permits is for the years 1972-1975. RECOMMENDED ORDER: Dismiss petition inasmuch as Respondent has removed subject sign. DELPHENE STRICKLAND Hearing Examiner Date: 5/14/75
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner. On the evening of July 13, 2010, the Respondent was observed driving erratically by Deputy Mark Buswell, an officer of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. After observing the Respondent driving for a distance, Deputy Buswell executed a traffic stop, at which time he smelled the odor of alcohol on the Respondent. In response to Deputy Buswell's inquiry, the Respondent denied having consumed alcohol. Deputy Buswell asked the Respondent to step out of the truck and observed that the Respondent was unsteady on his feet and swaying. Deputy Buswell then administered a series of sobriety tests to the Respondent. Based on his observations, and his training and experience as a law enforcement officer, Deputy Buswell believed that the Respondent had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Buswell arrested the Respondent for DUI, a violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ After the arrest, Deputy Buswell twice asked the Respondent to submit to a breath alcohol test, and, on both occasions, the Respondent declined to take the test. The Respondent had previously been arrested for DUI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order permanently revoking the certification of Derek C. Floyd as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the corrected administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles Harry Kent, is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, license no. ME 0037235. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining licensed physicians. In connection with a prior disciplinary case against this Respondent the Agency issued a final order placing the Respondent on two years probation and requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00. Such fine was to be paid not later than March 5, 1995. As of March 28, 1996, the Respondent had not paid the administrative fine nor had he provided any explanation for the failure to timely remit payment. Efforts to notify the Respondent regarding the unpaid fine were unanswered by the Respondent. Ultimately, the administrative complaint in this case was filed against the Respondent and notice of the non-payment provided by way of allegations set forth in paragraphs 6 through 12. On October 3, 1995, the Respondent executed an election of rights which disputed the allegations and listed his address as 3605 Juan Ortiz Circle, Fort Pierce, Florida 34947. Attempts to personally contact this Respondent by an Agency investigator proved fruitless. Respondent has not responded to mail addressed to his address of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine, enter a final order suspending Respondent's medical license until such time as the administrative fine at issue in this cause is paid in full; imposing an additional fine in the amount of $5,000.00; and extending Respondent's period of probation by an additional two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5535 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles Harry Kent, M.D. Post Office Box 2478 Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine Division of Medical Quality Assurance Boards 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0342
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent has violated Sections 491.009(2)(h) and (u), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with a prior Board Order and, if so, the determination of an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David Pesek, is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the State of Florida, and has been so licensed at all times relevant and material to this proceeding. His license number is NT 192. On September 7, 1988, the Petitioner filed an earlier Administrative Complaint against the Respondent in DPR Case No. 0055334. On February 14, 1990, the Respondent signed a stipulation providing for a stipulated disposition of DPR Case No. 0055334. The Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling approved the stipulated disposition at a meeting on April 27, 1990, and on Nay 23, 1990, a Final Order was rendered in DPR Case No. 0055334. The Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334 included the following pertinent language: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the Executive Director of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling within sixty (60) days of the filing of the Final Order herein. Respondent shall be placed on probation for one (1) year, with the condition of probation that Respondent's billing records and documents be reviewed by a consulting practitioner. The one (1) year probation shall begin to run when consulting practitioner is approved. Such consultant shall submit a written report to the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling six (6) months following the rendition of the Final Order. The consulting practitioner shall be selected by Respondent, subject to approval of the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334, the deadline for paying the administrative fine was July 23, 1990. On November 27, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation sent a letter to the Respondent reminding him that he had not complied with the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. By letter dated December 6, 1990, and received on December 13, 1990, the Respondent transmitted his check in the amount of one thousand dollars in payment of the fine. 2/ The fine was paid approximately four and a half months after it was due. By letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent advised the Chairman of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling of the name of a consulting practitioner who was willing to perform the review and reporting functions required by the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. The letter of January 23, 1991, was two months after the deadline for the consultant's report. By letter dated April 1, 1991, the Respondent was advised by staff of the Department of Professional Regulation that his choice of a consulting practitioner had been approved, that the consultant's report would be due six months from the date of the letter, and that the Respondent's one-year probation period would begin as of the date of the letter. /3
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 491.009(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 491.009(2)(u), Florida Statutes, and finding him guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Imposing a penalty consisting of: (1) an administra- tive fine in the amount of $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), (2) issuance of a public reprimand, and (3) a six-month period of probation, which period shall begin on the first day following the Respondent's current probation period and shall be subject to such reasonable conditions of probation as may seem appropriate to the Board. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 3-12, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
